Because Maggie Gallagher is the nation’s expert on marriage discrimination, she appeared on Fox News this afternoon to take a swipe at Barack Obama‘s decision to stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, and Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to stop defending the law in court. “This is an end run on our normal constitutional process,” says Gallagher, “and we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this by President Obama now that he faces a Republican-dominated Congress. He’s not only refusing to defend the law, he has unilaterally declared that gay is like black — that orientation is now subjected to strict scrutiny.” You mean a class of people born with an immutable characteristic get to have their rights protected by one of the law’s most stringent barriers? Amazing! Snaps, of course, to Fox News’ for complaining only when DoJ doesn’t defend the laws it likes.

1. Why do you not wear a wedding ring most of the time?
2. Why are you and your husband never in the same location?
3. Why have you had an abortion in the past but no children with your current husband…after all, marriage is to make babies.
4. Why do you go by your maiden name?

Feb 23, 2011 at 3:44 pm · @Reply ·

kernelt

I’m a very loving and compassionate, but to those ill character and bad influence on society would just diminish and no longer heard of…

Feb 23, 2011 at 4:03 pm · @Reply ·

Devon

It’s only been a few hours and Faux News is already losing it’s damn mind.

Pass the popcorn please, this is gonna be good watchin’.

Feb 23, 2011 at 4:14 pm · @Reply ·

Jeffree

Wow, Maggie and her cabal must be furious that they Did.Not.See.This.Happening.

now you know people whi hate gays might just also be hateful towards african americans…

Feb 23, 2011 at 7:28 pm · @Reply ·

Ceaser

@alan brickman: Very true..and most of them are. The proof is usually proudly displayed on this site.

Feb 23, 2011 at 7:58 pm · @Reply ·

Kev C

This video reminded me of Dr. Zoidberg woopwooping for 11 minutes.

Feb 23, 2011 at 11:12 pm · @Reply ·

Steve

@Chitown Kev said, “In California, strict scrutiny was used…now what will be the applicable federal standard?”

Even the decision by the 9th Federal District in Perry v. Schwarzenegger case was made on the basis of rational basis, not strict scrutiny. The key part of the decision that Walker wrote is, “Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis”.

Judge Walkers mention of strict scrutiny is dicta, not decision. He did write, “gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect”, but he didn’t reach the application of strict scrutiny because prop-8 failed to pass rational basis.

I wasn’t talking about Walker’s decision. I was talking about In Re. Marriage Cases,

The California Supreme Court is, I believe, the only STATE court to have used strict scrutiny.

Point being, federal courts can choose to use what state court decisions as precedents (just as Justice Kennedy has used a little international law)…whether the courts actually use previous decisions decided in state courts is another matter.

Feb 24, 2011 at 6:10 am · @Reply ·

Pip

I can just picture Maggie all sweaty with cheetos smeared around her skins, crying “GAY IS NOT LIKE BLACK! GAY IS NOT LIKE BLACK! NooooOOoo!”

No. 2 · Cam wrote, “Maggie, You say that your goal is to defend traditional marriage…so…
…
2. Why are you and your husband never in the same location?
…”

I can answer Question 2 by telling you a story of Middle Eastern origin. This character named Nasrudin gets married, never having seen his wife’s face before, and realizes that she is very ugly. She says, “tell me to whom I can show my face and to whom I must remain veiled.” Nasrudin replies, “show your face to anyone you like as long as you don’t show it to me.”